{"id":7349,"date":"2024-09-20T21:41:48","date_gmt":"2024-09-20T21:41:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/?p=7349"},"modified":"2024-12-05T16:54:54","modified_gmt":"2024-12-05T16:54:54","slug":"novo-nordisk-which-has-made-nearly-50-billion-in-sales-off-of-ozempic-and-wegovy-charges-americans-almost-1000-a-month","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/?p=7349","title":{"rendered":"\u201cNovo Nordisk, which has made nearly $50 billion in sales off of Ozempic and Wegovy, charges Americans almost $1,000 a month"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By Jake Johnson<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called out the pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk on Tuesday for charging American patients more than $900 a month for the increasingly popular diabetes drug Ozempic, even though generic manufacturers are willing to sell the medication for significantly less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During a panel discussion<\/a> with experts, Sanders<\/a> said he and his staff have been in contact with the top executives of major drugmakers<\/a> who say they could sell a generic version of Ozempic for less than $100 a month \u2014 and still turn a profit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A recent study<\/a> found that the drug can be manufactured for less than $5 a month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNovo Nordisk, which has made nearly $50 billion in sales off of Ozempic and Wegovy, charges Americans almost $1,000 a month \u2014 the highest prices in the world<\/a>,\u201d Sanders, the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said Tuesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhy? Excessive corporate greed<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ozempic and Wegovy<\/a> are part of a class of treatments known as GLP-1s<\/a>. Wegovy, a weight-loss drug that Novo Nordisk sells for $1,349 a month in the U.S., contains the same active ingredient as Ozempic, which is approved only for people with Type 2 diabetes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The drugs\u2019 growing popularity<\/a> in the U.S. has drawn greater scrutiny to Novo Nordisk\u2019s pricing. Sanders\u2019 office noted on Sept. 17 that the company\u2019s price tag for Wegovy is $186 in Denmark, $140 in Germany and $92 in the United Kingdom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Novo Nordisk\u2019s high prices for the drugs in the U.S. could have far-reaching impacts on the nation\u2019s healthcare system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A group of economists wrote in a recent op-ed for The New York Times<\/a> earlier this year that \u201cunder reasonable assumptions and at current prices, making this class of drugs available to all obese Americans could eventually cost over $1 trillion per year,\u201d which is \u201calmost as much as the government spends<\/a> on the entireMedicare program and almost one-fifth of the entire amount America spends<\/a> on healthcare.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sanders warned on Sept. 17 that if the prices of Ozempic and Wegovy aren\u2019t reined in, Medicare premiums could surge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOur healthcare system, I think most people understand, is in crisis,\u201d Sanders said during the panel discussion. \u201cThe business model of the pharmaceutical industry<\/a> is unsustainable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n

Over the course of our investigation into the outrageous cost of Ozempic and Wegovy in the U.S., I spoke with the CEOs of major generic pharmaceutical companies who confirmed:
They can sell a generic version of Ozempic for $100\/mo. https:\/\/t.co\/XDHdBRPIcM<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) September 17, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Peter Maybarduk, director of the Access to Medicines Program at Public Citizen, said in a statement on Sept. 17 that \u201call we need to make Ozempic for $100 a reality is to overcome Novo\u2019s patent monopoly, which the government has the power to do any time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cStates and clinicians<\/a> are asking the feds for help,\u201d said Maybarduk. \u201cWe estimate taking action on Novo\u2019s patents could save Medicare more than $14 billion in the first two years of competition, while making diabetes and obesity drugs affordable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last month, Public Citizen<\/a> delivered a petition to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra urging him to use existing law to \u201cauthorize generic competitors to Ozempic and Wegovy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNovo Nordisk\u2019s outrageous pricing of [Ozempic and Wegovy] threatens to break the coffers of federal health programs,\u201d the group wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1498, the administration should authorize use of any and all patents necessary to allow manufacturers to produce generic alternatives to these treatments on behalf of the United States government, which can be used to supply Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health programs. This will facilitate competition and make the treatments more affordable and accessible for patients.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CEO of Novo Nordisk, which has spent aggressively on lobbying<\/a> this year, is scheduled to testify<\/a> before the Senate HELP Committee next week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Originally published by Common Dreams<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jake Johnson is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a decision that could end the practice of water fluoridation in the U.S., a federal judge late Tuesday ruled<\/a> that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an \u201cunreasonable risk\u201d of reduced IQ in children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can no longer ignore that risk, and must take regulatory action, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California wrote in the long-awaited landmark decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than 200 million Americans drink water treated with fluoride<\/a> at the \u201coptimal\u201d level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg\/L). However, Chen ruled that a preponderance of scientific evidence shows this level of fluoride exposure may damage human health, particularly that of pregnant mothers and young children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The verdict delivers a major blow to the EPA, public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and professional lobbying groups like the American Dental Association (ADA), which have staked their reputations on the claim that water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements<\/a> of the 20th century and an unqualified public good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fluoride proponents refused to reexamine that stance<\/a> despite mounting scientific evidence from top researchers<\/a> and government agencies<\/a> of fluoride\u2019s neurotoxic risks, particularly for infants\u2019 developing brains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, they attempted to weaken and suppress the research<\/a> and discredit the scientists<\/a> carrying it out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rick North, board member of Fluoride Action Network, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, told The Defender, \u201cWhat\u2019s false is the CDC claiming that fluoridation is one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century. What\u2019s true is that ending fluoridation will be one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 21st century.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe judge did what EPA has long refused to do, and that is to apply the EPA standard risk assessment framework<\/a> to fluoride,\u201d said Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs. \u201cIn so doing, the court has shown that the widespread exposure to fluoride that we now have in the United States is unreasonably and precariously close to the levels that we know cause harm.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA can appeal Tuesday\u2019s decision. The agency<\/a> told The Defender it is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the EPA in the lawsuit, also said it has no comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EPA\u2019s argument \u2018not persuasive\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling concludes a historic lawsuit<\/a> \u2014 one that has dragged on for seven years \u2014 brought against the EPA by environmental and consumer advocacy organizations like the Fluoride Action Network<\/a>, Moms Against Fluoridation<\/a> and Food & Water Watch<\/a>, along with individual parents and children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is the first lawsuit to go to a federal trial under the Toxic Substances Control Act<\/a> (TSCA), as amended by Congress in 2016. The TSCA allows U.S. citizens to petition the EPA to evaluate whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to public health and should be regulated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the EPA denies a TSCA citizen petition \u2014 which the agency did when the plaintiffs asked it to reexamine water fluoridation in 2016 \u2014 the petitioners are entitled to a \u201cde novo\u201d judicial review of the science without the deference to the agency typically afforded it in legal cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chen\u2019s 80-page ruling, issued six months after closing arguments<\/a> in February, offers a careful and detailed articulation of the EPA\u2019s review process for chemicals that pose a hazard to human health and evaluates and summarizes the extensive scientific data presented at trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chen wrote<\/a>, \u201cEPA\u2019s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level.\u201d He cited a key report<\/a> issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP), which undertook a systematic review of all available scientific research at the time of publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report \u201cconcluded that fluoride is indeed associated with reduced IQ in children, at least at exposure levels at or above 1.5 mg\/L,\u201d Chen wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NTP also reported that although there are technical challenges to measuring fluoride\u2019s toxic<\/a> effects at low levels, \u201cscientists have observed a statistically significant association between fluoride and adverse effects in children even at such \u2018lower\u2019 exposure levels,\u201d Chen wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said that despite recognizing that fluoride is hazardous, the EPA\u2019s defense rested largely on the fact that the exact level at which it is hazardous is too unclear for the agency to determine whether the chemical presents an unreasonable risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This argument is \u201cnot persuasive,\u201d Chen wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pregnant women exposed to fluoride in water at levels exceeding the hazard level<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA requires a margin of error by a factor of at least 10 to exist between the hazard level for a toxin and the acceptable human exposure level. \u201cPut differently, only an exposure that is below 1\/10th of the hazard level would be deemed safe under Amended TSCA, given the margin of error required,\u201d Chen wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That means that even if the hazard level were 4 mg\/L \u2014 well above the 1.5 mg\/L identified by the NTP \u2014 the safe level of fluoride exposure would be 0.4 mg\/L, well below the current \u201coptimal\u201d fluoride level in the U.S., Chen wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The much lower probable hazard level established by high-quality studies indicates that many pregnant women in the U.S. are already exposed to fluoride in water at levels exceeding the hazard level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cUnder even the most conservative estimates of this level, there is not enough of a margin between the accepted hazard level and the actual human exposure levels to find that fluoride is safe,\u201d Chen concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSimply put, the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA under Amended TSCA.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law dictates that the EPA must take regulatory action, but it does not specify what that action has to be. EPA regulatory actions can range from notifying the public of risks to banning chemicals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Philippe Grandjean, M.D., Ph.D<\/a>., adjunct professor in environmental health at Harvard and chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, top researcher on fluoride\u2019s neurotoxicity<\/a> and expert witness for plaintiffs in the case told The Defender<\/a> he thought the court\u2019s decision was \u201cwell-justified.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said the ruling made it incumbent on the EPA to go beyond simply ending water fluoridation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEPA will have to consider what to do in the southwestern parts of the country where the fluoride content of groundwater is too high due to minerals in the soil containing fluoride,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd then there is the question about ingestion of toothpaste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CDC and the ADA did not immediately respond to The Defender\u2019s request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than 70 years of controversy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For more than seven decades, U.S. public health officials have steadfastly supported water fluoridation<\/a>, claiming the practice is a key strategy for maintaining and improving dental health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proponents of water fluoridation, with help from the mainstream press, often attempted to cast those questioning fluoride\u2019s benefits<\/a> and raising concerns about its safety as conspiracy theorists<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA in 1975 recommended adding fluoride to water at an optimal level of 1.2 mg\/L for its dental benefits, but recommended a maximum level of 4 mg\/L, the ruling said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As more evidence has emerged about fluoride\u2019s adverse health effects<\/a>, including skeletal fluorosis, recommended levels were revised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy<\/a>, officially lowered the recommended dosage for water fluoridation in 2015 from 0.7-1.2 mg\/L to 0.7 mg\/L after considering \u201cadverse health effects<\/a>\u201d along with alleged benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, evidence that fluoride poses a neurotoxic risk has existed for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2017, after the EPA rejected their citizen petition<\/a> to end fluoridation of drinking water<\/a> in the U.S. based on evidence of health risks, namely neurotoxicity, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A seven-day trial took place in federal court in San Francisco in June 2020, but Chen put the proceedings on hold<\/a> pending the release of the NTP\u2019s systematic review of research available on the neurotoxic effects of fluoride.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NTP sought to publish its report \u2014 which consisted of a \u201cstate of the science\u201d monograph and a meta-analysis \u2014 in May 2022, but dental officials at the CDC and the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research<\/a> pressured HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine<\/a> to prevent the review from being published.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ADA also sought to suppress<\/a> the report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Levine told the NTP to not publish the report but to put it on hold and allow for further review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs submitted documents<\/a> obtained via the Freedom of Information Act exposing this intervention to the court. The revelation prompted Chen to rule that the trial should go forward using the draft report from the NTP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial resumed in January in San Francisco, with arguments presented over the course of two weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NTP\u2019s monograph was finalized and published<\/a> last month on its website. The meta-analysis is forthcoming in a peer-reviewed journal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connett said that Congress created the citizen petition provision in TSCA as a counterweight to bureaucratic lethargy and as a check on the EPA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The statute, he said, is a powerful tool for overcoming politicized science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhen science becomes fossilized in political inertia, the citizen petition provision of TSCA is a very powerful tool for citizens,\u201d Connett said. \u201cThrough this case, we have been able to effectuate what Congress had envisioned with this part of the statute.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In a decision that could end the practice of water fluoridation in the U.S., a federal judge late Tuesday ruled<\/a> that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an \u201cunreasonable risk\u201d of reduced IQ in children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can no longer ignore that risk, and must take regulatory action, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California wrote in the long-awaited landmark decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than 200 million Americans drink water treated with fluoride<\/a> at the \u201coptimal\u201d level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg\/L). However, Chen ruled that a preponderance of scientific evidence shows this level of fluoride exposure may damage human health, particularly that of pregnant mothers and young children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The verdict delivers a major blow to the EPA, public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and professional lobbying groups like the American Dental Association (ADA), which have staked their reputations on the claim that water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements<\/a> of the 20th century and an unqualified public good.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Fluoride proponents refused to reexamine that stance<\/a> despite mounting scientific evidence from top researchers<\/a> and government agencies<\/a> of fluoride\u2019s neurotoxic risks, particularly for infants\u2019 developing brains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, they attempted to weaken and suppress the research<\/a> and discredit the scientists<\/a> carrying it out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rick North, board member of Fluoride Action Network, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, told The Defender, \u201cWhat\u2019s false is the CDC claiming that fluoridation is one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century. What\u2019s true is that ending fluoridation will be one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 21st century.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe judge did what EPA has long refused to do, and that is to apply the EPA standard risk assessment framework<\/a> to fluoride,\u201d said Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs. \u201cIn so doing, the court has shown that the widespread exposure to fluoride that we now have in the United States is unreasonably and precariously close to the levels that we know cause harm.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA can appeal Tuesday\u2019s decision. The agency<\/a> told The Defender it is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the EPA in the lawsuit, also said it has no comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

EPA\u2019s argument \u2018not persuasive\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling concludes a historic lawsuit<\/a> \u2014 one that has dragged on for seven years \u2014 brought against the EPA by environmental and consumer advocacy organizations like the Fluoride Action Network<\/a>, Moms Against Fluoridation<\/a> and Food & Water Watch<\/a>, along with individual parents and children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is the first lawsuit to go to a federal trial under the Toxic Substances Control Act<\/a> (TSCA), as amended by Congress in 2016. The TSCA allows U.S. citizens to petition the EPA to evaluate whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to public health and should be regulated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the EPA denies a TSCA citizen petition \u2014 which the agency did when the plaintiffs asked it to reexamine water fluoridation in 2016 \u2014 the petitioners are entitled to a \u201cde novo\u201d judicial review of the science without the deference to the agency typically afforded it in legal cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chen\u2019s 80-page ruling, issued six months after closing arguments<\/a> in February, offers a careful and detailed articulation of the EPA\u2019s review process for chemicals that pose a hazard to human health and evaluates and summarizes the extensive scientific data presented at trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chen wrote<\/a>, \u201cEPA\u2019s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level.\u201d He cited a key report<\/a> issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP), which undertook a systematic review of all available scientific research at the time of publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report \u201cconcluded that fluoride is indeed associated with reduced IQ in children, at least at exposure levels at or above 1.5 mg\/L,\u201d Chen wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NTP also reported that although there are technical challenges to measuring fluoride\u2019s toxic<\/a> effects at low levels, \u201cscientists have observed a statistically significant association between fluoride and adverse effects in children even at such \u2018lower\u2019 exposure levels,\u201d Chen wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said that despite recognizing that fluoride is hazardous, the EPA\u2019s defense rested largely on the fact that the exact level at which it is hazardous is too unclear for the agency to determine whether the chemical presents an unreasonable risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This argument is \u201cnot persuasive,\u201d Chen wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pregnant women exposed to fluoride in water at levels exceeding the hazard level<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA requires a margin of error by a factor of at least 10 to exist between the hazard level for a toxin and the acceptable human exposure level. \u201cPut differently, only an exposure that is below 1\/10th of the hazard level would be deemed safe under Amended TSCA, given the margin of error required,\u201d Chen wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That means that even if the hazard level were 4 mg\/L \u2014 well above the 1.5 mg\/L identified by the NTP \u2014 the safe level of fluoride exposure would be 0.4 mg\/L, well below the current \u201coptimal\u201d fluoride level in the U.S., Chen wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The much lower probable hazard level established by high-quality studies indicates that many pregnant women in the U.S. are already exposed to fluoride in water at levels exceeding the hazard level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cUnder even the most conservative estimates of this level, there is not enough of a margin between the accepted hazard level and the actual human exposure levels to find that fluoride is safe,\u201d Chen concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSimply put, the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA under Amended TSCA.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law dictates that the EPA must take regulatory action, but it does not specify what that action has to be. EPA regulatory actions can range from notifying the public of risks to banning chemicals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Philippe Grandjean, M.D., Ph.D<\/a>., adjunct professor in environmental health at Harvard and chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, top researcher on fluoride\u2019s neurotoxicity<\/a> and expert witness for plaintiffs in the case told The Defender<\/a> he thought the court\u2019s decision was \u201cwell-justified.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said the ruling made it incumbent on the EPA to go beyond simply ending water fluoridation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEPA will have to consider what to do in the southwestern parts of the country where the fluoride content of groundwater is too high due to minerals in the soil containing fluoride,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd then there is the question about ingestion of toothpaste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CDC and the ADA did not immediately respond to The Defender\u2019s request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than 70 years of controversy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For more than seven decades, U.S. public health officials have steadfastly supported water fluoridation<\/a>, claiming the practice is a key strategy for maintaining and improving dental health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proponents of water fluoridation, with help from the mainstream press, often attempted to cast those questioning fluoride\u2019s benefits<\/a> and raising concerns about its safety as conspiracy theorists<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA in 1975 recommended adding fluoride to water at an optimal level of 1.2 mg\/L for its dental benefits, but recommended a maximum level of 4 mg\/L, the ruling said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As more evidence has emerged about fluoride\u2019s adverse health effects<\/a>, including skeletal fluorosis, recommended levels were revised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy<\/a>, officially lowered the recommended dosage for water fluoridation in 2015 from 0.7-1.2 mg\/L to 0.7 mg\/L after considering \u201cadverse health effects<\/a>\u201d along with alleged benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, evidence that fluoride poses a neurotoxic risk has existed for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2017, after the EPA rejected their citizen petition<\/a> to end fluoridation of drinking water<\/a> in the U.S. based on evidence of health risks, namely neurotoxicity, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A seven-day trial took place in federal court in San Francisco in June 2020, but Chen put the proceedings on hold<\/a> pending the release of the NTP\u2019s systematic review of research available on the neurotoxic effects of fluoride.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NTP sought to publish its report \u2014 which consisted of a \u201cstate of the science\u201d monograph and a meta-analysis \u2014 in May 2022, but dental officials at the CDC and the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research<\/a> pressured HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine<\/a> to prevent the review from being published.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ADA also sought to suppress<\/a> the report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Levine told the NTP to not publish the report but to put it on hold and allow for further review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs submitted documents<\/a> obtained via the Freedom of Information Act exposing this intervention to the court. The revelation prompted Chen to rule that the trial should go forward using the draft report from the NTP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial resumed in January in San Francisco, with arguments presented over the course of two weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NTP\u2019s monograph was finalized and published<\/a> last month on its website. The meta-analysis is forthcoming in a peer-reviewed journal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connett said that Congress created the citizen petition provision in TSCA as a counterweight to bureaucratic lethargy and as a check on the EPA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The statute, he said, is a powerful tool for overcoming politicized science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhen science becomes fossilized in political inertia, the citizen petition provision of TSCA is a very powerful tool for citizens,\u201d Connett said. \u201cThrough this case, we have been able to effectuate what Congress had envisioned with this part of the statute.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

A case of measles in 2023, reported by the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and mainstream media as being the state\u2019s first case in four years, was vaccine-induced<\/a>, according to documents released Tuesday by Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for Children\u2019s Health Defense<\/a>, told The Defender<\/a> that measles \u201coutbreaks\u201d are a well-worn tactic of state and federal governmental agencies<\/a> to churn up fears<\/a> about people who choose not to vaccinate or who do so selectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe have seen measles used this way over and over,\u201d Mack Rosenberg said. \u201cHere, the narrative backfired and Maine officials swept under the rug the fact that the child\u2019s measles strain was vaccine-related.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the Mayo Clinic, measles<\/a> is a viral infection typically accompanied by a skin rash, fever, cough, runny nose, sore throat, inflamed eyes and tiny white spots on the inner cheek.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On May 5, 2023, Maine\u2019s Department of Health and Human Services<\/a> warned that the Maine CDC had been notified of a positive measles test \u2014 ostensibly the state\u2019s first measles case since 2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The health department said the child \u201creceived a dose of measles vaccine\u201d and that Maine CDC officials were \u201cconsidering the child to be infectious out of an abundance of caution.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The news was quickly picked up by mainstream news outlets such as CNN<\/a>, which blamed low vaccination rates for recent measles outbreaks, and USA Today<\/a>, which stressed that the best way to prevent measles is for children and babies as young as 12 months<\/a> to get the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the child\u2019s May 3, 2023, test results<\/a> \u2014 which ICAN obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request \u2014 revealed that the measles strain was \u201cconsistent with vaccine strain\u201d \u2014 meaning the vaccine caused the child\u2019s rash symptoms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roughly 2% of people who get a measles vaccine develop a rash<\/a>, according to a World Health Organization report. But the Maine CDC never went public about this information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly two weeks after the testing was done, the Maine CDC<\/a> on May 16, 2023, announced that the child didn\u2019t have an infectious strain of measles \u2014 but the announcement failed to state that the child\u2019s rash was vaccine-related.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why did the Maine CDC take so long to confirm the strain?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s inexcusable that Maine CDC officials took so long to determine the strain of measles, Mack Rosenberg said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTheir fear is that such information would lead to more vaccine hesitancy,\u201d she said. \u201cHowever, obfuscating information in this way deprives the public of crucial information about vaccine safety and effectiveness.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ICAN in a press release questioned why the Maine CDC raised the alarm and then took so long to confirm the specific strain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mack Rosenberg noted that mainstream news outlets \u201cimmediately\u201d jumped on \u201cthe fearmongering bandwagon\u201d before the strain type was identified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYet when the true nature of this child\u2019s exposure was revealed,\u201d she said, \u201dranks were closed to prevent the truth from getting out.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D.<\/a>, a senior research scientist at CHD, told The Defender it was \u201creckless fear-mongering\u201d to identify one case of measles in a vaccinated child and then issue a press release<\/a> saying that anyone who isn\u2019t immunized against measles, or doesn\u2019t know their immunization status, should get vaccinated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFear-mongering is formulaic: danger, solution and vilify those who do not conform,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If it\u2019s well executed and done in coordination with media, it may get people to do what you want \u2014 but at a cost, he said. \u201cOne of the greatest threats to our public health is that our public health institutions lack integrity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reports of measles outbreaks continue<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reports of measles outbreaks have continued since May of 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CBS News on Sept. 24 reported a newly confirmed case of an elementary student in Minneapolis<\/a>, bringing the number of confirmed cases in the Twin Cities<\/a> to over 50.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So far in 2024, there have been 262 reported cases of measles<\/a>, according to the CDC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2024, cases were reported in Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York City, New York State, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Jan. 1, 2020, to March 28, 2024, the CDC was notified of 338 confirmed measles cases<\/a>. None of them resulted in death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Maine CDC on April 14 issued a health advisory<\/a> regarding an \u201cincrease in global and domestic measles cases and outbreaks.\u201d The advisory said that Maine has not seen any measles cases since 2019 and made no mention of the May 2023 case it initially reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Health risks from measles vaccine outweigh getting the disease<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although media reports sometimes blame the unvaccinated for recent outbreaks<\/a>, Dr. Liz Mumper, a pediatrician, told The Defender in an earlier interview it doesn\u2019t make sense to assume the unvaccinated are to blame.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

She said cyclical outbreaks still occur even in populations with nearly 100% vaccination, such as college students<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The overwhelming majority of the approximately 130,000<\/a> measles deaths<\/a> annually occur in countries in the global south that have weak health infrastructures, according to the World Health Organization<\/a>. Those deaths, along with measles hospitalizations in the global north, are associated with vitamin A deficiency<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMeasles can be deadly if a child does not have access to safe water and medical care,\u201d Mumper said<\/a>. \u201cIn developed countries, fatalities from measles are very rare.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Effective treatments include vitamin A in high doses<\/a> and attention to hydration status, Mumper said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other pediatricians who spoke with The Defender said it\u2019s likely better for a U.S. child to get a measles infection than to receive an MMR vaccine<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Michelle Perro<\/a>, a pediatrician, said the idea of vaccinating children to protect them from getting measles isn\u2019t completely without merit. \u201cIt is worth noting that training the immune system to recognize deleterious foreign pathogens has had public health success.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the risks associated with the MMR vaccine \u2014 since it\u2019s nearly impossible to get a single measles vaccine \u2014 outweigh getting measles \u201cdue to the rise in neurocognitive and other health challenges<\/a> directly caused by the MMR vaccine\u201d which contains toxic<\/a> adjuvants, she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Paul Thomas<\/a>, a retired pediatrician and author of \u201cVax Facts<\/a>: What to Consider Before Vaccinating at All Ages & All Stages of Life,\u201d agreed. He said the MMR vaccine is associated with many serious side effects including seizures<\/a>, encephalopathy<\/a>, death<\/a> and autism<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Perro said children\u2019s health took a big hit when Big Pharma<\/a> and the American Medical Association over 100 years ago forced the public to transition from a natural health platform that included the use of health-promoting diets, herbal medicine and homeopathics to a drug-based system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measles can be challenging for children, Perro said, particularly when it\u2019s accompanied by high fevers, diarrhea, uncomfortable rashes and potential negative sequelae such as pneumonia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Parents must relearn how to manage common viral illnesses, she said. \u201cBe clear, it is much easier to manage a febrile illness in a child than a chronic disease like autism or autoimmunity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Defender reached out to the CDC for comment but did not receive a response by the deadline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Links; Matilda-macelroy.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The God Eaters.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sustainable-Farming, victory gardens<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Laura Eisenhower and the colony on Mars.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eu-China.<\/a> https:\/\/matilda-macelroy.com\/wp63\/blog\/2024\/11\/29\/eu-china\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our-genetic-soul-structure.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The-shark-are-closing-in.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legalized-theft-monetizing-nature-all-for-the-greater-good.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How-our-consciousness-creates-reality.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Behind-our-3-dimensional-world.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All-that-is.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alien-interventions-and-our-minions.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enslavement-of-humanity<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

strategic-considerations-taking-control-of-humanity.<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Jake Johnson U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called out the pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk on Tuesday for charging American patients more than $900 a month for the increasingly popular diabetes drug Ozempic, even though generic manufacturers are willing to sell the medication for significantly less. During a panel discussion with experts, Sanders said he […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7349","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7349"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7349\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7752,"href":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7349\/revisions\/7752"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}